The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-02-05

pau VI tAO 0OuuOuu, uuu WullO UhO
speaker represented the Trinitarian idea,
he was free to say it was one unfounded
in reason or philosophy. A Trinity in
unity and unity in Trinity were mex
plicable, and all reasoning must set it
aside. He believed Christ did not
claim to be Godhead, ever holding God
as his Father, without whom he could
do nothing, and upon whom he was
fully dependent as we are, 20 whom all
petitions should be made, and all thanks
giving offered. The surprising theory
for an orthodox was advanced, that
Christ did not exist in any sense till
born of Mary that he then and there
began an existence, as all do at birth.
Mr.. Williams adds: Though these
ideas seemed "strange to the writer
''from this source, the first query seemed
"more so when he acknowledged his
Inability to comprehend the mind Of
"God, but concluded that God did not
''know man would sin-did not fore
'know or foresee any thing. Hence
"God could not preordain remedy
Through any atonement but that
with God all was one eternal present,
land each provision was natural re-
''sult of the necessity calling it forth. :"
DR.. Ray is evidently one of those
who are cropping for light, and badly in
need of the same. While he rejects
the idea of the Godhead of Jesus, he is
not inclined to adopt strictly humanita-
rian views, believing that "the man
Christ Jesus" was begotten of the Holy
Ghost. His views on foreknowledge
and foreordination, clearly limit the in
finite being, and need further explana-
nation to be ineligible. If with God
as he declares ''all is one eternal pres
ent," can we conceive of anything as
not known to him from the beginning
as existing outside of the sphere OF
the eternal recognition The fact OF
all things being present with God, is q
substantial assertion that God is moi
dependent for his knowledge on events
as they come to pass, but sees the end
from the beginning knows all things
from their incipiency, and is thus able tC
govern and control all the forces and
factors of his universe. A God who
cannot foresee and foreknow is shorr
at once of that which makes him inf
mite. 1t is not to such a God as this
that we would be willing to confide the
| interests of the universe. If he did moi
foresee and could not foreknow, hi
might be surprised at any time by 6
combination Of events arising, which
would interfere with his plans and pur
poses, and thus seriously disturb the
existing order of things. Man could
not repose confidence in God thus
denuded of the elements of infnity
Faith in him would be a faith mo-
founded on rational basis.
DR.. Ray does not even believe thai
God 'foreordained remedy" for mans
sin by means of the atonement. This
provision twas natural result of the
necessity calling it forth" That il
to say, DR. Ray rejects the entire ortho
dox scheme Of salvation, for in that
the atonement invariably figures as 8
prearranged remedy for the salvation Of
mankind, existing in the divine minC
from the very beginning, even before
man had sinned. He does not discredit
the atonement, but in some way sep
parates the inception of Christ's work
from the divine mind until after mar
fell from original innocence, and the
race became sinners. Then the atone.
ment was inaugurated as a natural
result of the necessity of the situation.
We consider this very decided depar.
ture from the common faith of the
orthodox churches. What becomes OF
"the lamb slain from the foundation of
the world" under this view, and also
other interpretations of the orthodox
church which plainly indicate that the
atonement was in the thought of God
from the beginning? We should like
to see how DR.. Ray would answer these
and similar questions before an ecclesi-
astical council. Perhaps there will be
an opportunity some day to satisfy oul
curiosity on this point.